Doctor Who [11]

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Except those are not the narrative reasons given in the episodes or the story.
The stated reasons are there- her childhood, re-meeting her imaginary friend, having a near death experience- and that in turn feeds into the Doctors sense of guilt over the whole thing and his determination to put matters right somehow.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:There is no other female character like that in Moffat Who or with that relationship with the Doctor.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Blogs and articles are not a basis for debate Blue! Or Ill just start posting feminist articles in support of Moffat- and thats pointless as it just descends into blog v blog- none of the writers of which are here to discuss with. Justify your own words please, dont do it with other peoples!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:It's the reason given by Moffat and as such the reason he wrote it. And I find it, in my own subjective opinion, problematic. - Bluie

The reason given by a man who is on record as saying he says increasingly outrageous offensive things in direct correspondence to how stupid he thins the question is- telling him its sexist he will deliberately give you an outrageous answer to offend further- because that amuses him (its a very Scottish thing to do in act)- he even repeats this again at the recent Comic-con panel when discussing Sherlock.

When judging any art- painting, book, film, tv or whatever the product itself is the first and main issues to look at- and in the episode itself the motivations are given very clearly indeed. Its not even left at all ambiguous.

Pettytyrant101 wrote: 'with this claim of desexualiztion and deromantization of the Doctor by the writer who married hm off to one of his other original female characters, River Song'- Blue

River was conceived originally as the daughter of a future companion right from the start in Forest- if you watch it back thats quite clear in retrospect as it the fact she is the Doctor wife in the future- its more than strongly hinted that- that we then get to see how this comes about when Moffat took over is hardly surprising therefore- and rather he fall for a someone who is part Timlord, part a child of the TARDIS and who has a significantly longer lifespan than a human and has experience of regeneration and Time Lord knowledge and smarts.
Thats a whole different kettle of fish from falling for a 19 year old pudding brain.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:It's the reason given by Moffat and as such the reason he wrote it. And I find it, in my own subjective opinion, problematic. - Bluie

The reason given by a man who is on record as saying he says increasingly outrageous offensive things in direct correspondence to how stupid he thins the question is- telling him its sexist he will deliberately give you an outrageous answer to offend further- because that amuses him (its a very Scottish thing to do in act)- he even repeats this again at the recent Comic-con panel when discussing Sherlock.

So basically you are saying he is so arrogant that he wont reply to reasonable questions without sarcasm, or he is above mere mortals and their 'outrageous' questions. this is a catch-all to imply he is beyond reproach.

When judging any art- painting, book, film, tv or whatever the product itself is the first and main issues to look at- and in the episode itself the motivations are given very clearly indeed. Its not even left at all ambiguous.

yep that's why people question him, they saw the product and didn't like it.

'with this claim of desexualiztion and deromantization of the Doctor by the writer who married hm off to one of his other original female characters, River Song'- Blue

River was conceived originally as the daughter of a future companion right from the start in Forest- if you watch it back thats quite clear in retrospect as it the fact she is the Doctor wife in the future- its more than strongly hinted that- that we then get to see how this comes about when Moffat took over is hardly surprising therefore- and rather he fall for a someone who is part Timlord, part a child of the TARDIS and who has a significantly longer lifespan than a human and has experience of regeneration and Time Lord knowledge and smarts.
Thats a whole different kettle of fish from falling for a 19 year old pudding brain.

The whole point of Doctor Who is his love of humanity, including 19 year old shop assistants. to say the only person worthy of his affection is another Timelord is rather missing the point, and elitist.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:So basically you are saying he is so arrogant that he wont reply to reasonable questions without sarcasm- Figg

The whole point of Doctor Who is his love of humanity, including 19 year old shop assistants- Figg

There is a gulf of difference between loving humanity and falling in love with individual humans who are barely out of childhood by human standards and not even close to it by Gallifreyean standards- thats just uncomfortable, weird and wrong.

rubbish. the relationship with Rose was based on mutual trust and friendship. that came first. romance, such as it was, came second and it was always jokey and never maudlin. or wrong.   the proof of the pudding is the fans reaction to them. people love the Doctor/Rose thing because its a hundred times more hearfelt and real than the posturing icky double nintendos that River the One Woman Benny Hill churns out.

I am not saying a Timelord is the only person worthy of his affections, but a mature adult is (and we have no idea how old River is as we dont know how much time passess for her in-between seeing her, but with a Gallifryean life span thats about 2000 years to old age (based on 1 regen and the Doctors ageing at Trenzalore plus his start age)- River is simply far more suited and likely a character for him to have a relationship with. She is much closer to his level, has the same instinctive understating of Time and his telepathic  like a Time lord. She travels on her own in space and time. Rose is just wrong and unsuitable on every level.

He isn't in love with River though, he always looks so embarrassed when she comes on to him, she does all the chasing in that relationship, its like she forces herself on him, and he goes along with it because of guilt or whatever. its certainly not a healthy relationship. she worships him and he is like some weirded out nephew she has the hots for. Smiths Doctor never treats River with the genuine happy enjoyment in her company that he does as 10 with Rose


And if Mofatt had come up with the idea of the Doctor falling in love with an 18 year old human companion he was travelling with you would be the first to be shouting from the rafters how wrong and creepy it is and how it just shows how Moffat treats women. The hypocrisy here is astounding.

First off. No I wouldn't because Tennant and Piper looked perfectly compatible ages for this to happen, and Piper was in her early twenties. Not one person was worried about a non existent problem. I am not fixated by the 900 year age gap that you seem not to be able to get over. Moffat came up with the wrong and creepy idea of an 18 year old girl that has men who look up her skirt and crash the TARDIS. you are so busy tub thumping you cant hear anyone else's opinion.

Bluebottle wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Blogs and articles are not a basis for debate Blue! Or Ill just start posting feminist articles in support of Moffat- and thats pointless as it just descends into blog v blog- none of the writers of which are here to discuss with. Justify your own words please, dont do it with other peoples!

It's an article that illustrates the kind of criticism that exists. I did not use it to claim anything, the article is a lot more lenient with Moffat than I would be, but it does illustrate the criticism that exists, and what that criticism is directed at. Does that mean the criticism is necessarily correct? In no way. But it exists.

I would say there's no smoke without fire, but that again is my subjective opinion.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:the relationship with Rose was based on mutual trust and friendship- Figg

As I said earlier to Amarie I don't see how it can be mutual when one half of the releationship has a massive advantage over the other person in age and life experience and intelligence.
As Vastra says in Deep Breath- 'But he is the Doctor. He has walked this universe for centuries untold, he has seen stars fall to dust. You might as well flirt with a mountain range.'

Rose, is pretty much his equal, and she is his equal because of her abilities. she proves herself worthy of respect. He relies on her sometimes, its not the unequal relationship that Smith and Capaldi have with their companions. for a start Rose isn't lied to and manipulated, Amy isn't told she is pregnant, she is almost like a human experiment he wants to solve rather than a human being with rights. Smiths and Capaldis Doctor is a demi-god way above the intelligence of his assistant, and only another Timelord is good enough for him to 'mate' with.


the proof of the pudding is the fans reaction to them. - Figg

Utterly unquantifiable as it is- there are plenty dont like Rose, more than plenty. As though its a subjective sense it seems to be an ever increasing number as fans who have grown up on Moffat era go back and watch Tennant era and find they dont like her-

utterly unquantifiable.

which explains why she keeps slipping own the companion polls as time goes on. And given your love of blogs take a look-

Who blogs in general, always agree that Moffat is rubbish at writing females.

there are no shortage of why Rose sucks blogs. And on to of that the show is more popular now without her than it ever was with her in it.
So I doubt both your proof and your pudding.

'He isn't in love with River though'

No, he's the Doctor, so its more complicated than a simple human emotion and more ambiguous from his side than the stupid teenage love of 10 and Rose- that I would agree on-

I thought you didn't approve of other peoples opinions? why other peoples videos, they have an agenda as unsubtle as blogs in many cases, its all in the editing.



Tennant and Piper looked perfectly compatible ages for this to happen- Figg

Utterly irrelevant the age of the actors, what is relevant are the characters and the narrative- and here we have a near immortal God (especially in the RTD era- Last of the Time Lords, the Ongoing Storm ect) getting it together with an 18 year old- its wrong, just wrong however you try to justify it.

actually its is relevant. they look right together, on the other hand River looks like his sleazy auntie who likes tongues.

'I am not fixated by the 900 year age gap that you seem not to be able to get over.'

But you should be as its utterly wrong and immoral- he has all the advantage and all the power in that relationship.

nah. Rose can hold her own. and they don't actually have sex you know.

'creepy idea of an 18 year old girl that has men who look up her skirt '

I am sure what you meant to say there was the context- that the 'men' is in fact a lie, as its 1 man who is her newly married to her husband, and its not from an episode but a comedy sketch made for charity

so that makes the implicit creepery ok does it?
.